It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

page: 16
100
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





You're welcome to believe what you wish, but take the issue of slavery out of the equation, and I assure you that those states would not have seceeded that time


Once again, you have addressed this issue with a hasty generalization.

The topic at hand concerns why the slave owning states felt the right to secede...
And it was absolutely NOT because they feared any actions from Lincoln.
If they feared anything... It was INACTION from Lincoln.

As I have said about 4 times now, the slave owning states felt justified with secession because they saw reprehensible inaction by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government was turning a blind eye to the non slave owning states enacting laws that were in direct violation of Article 4 of the mutually agreed upon, binding, and de jure US Constitution.

Slavery happened to be the issue causing the division, but make no mistake, it was the behavior of the non slave owning states that made the slave owning states wish to secede.
Slavery was the superficial gloss for the fact that the confederate states saw the Constitution as no longer binding.

Several slave owning state governors made declarations seeking to secede because of the election of Lincoln simply because he supported abolitionist causes.
They believed that Lincoln would support the actions of the non slave owning states that were in violation of the Constitution.
They believed that Lincoln would not uphold his oath of office, similar to the behavior of the non-slave owning states.

By reducing the issue to the red-herring of slavery you are minimizing the fact that the seceding states, in fact, seceded because they believed that the constitution was no longer binding.
IT SEEMS AS IF I CAN NOT REPEAT THIS ENOUGH TIMES.

Your perception of our history is grossly over-simplified and relies on the logical fallacy of the hasty generalization.
This type of misguided rationalization was used to sell the Vietnam Police action as a fight against communism.

Yes, communism was dominant in North Vietnam, but that was only the superficial reason given for the United States presence.

Yes, slavery was the superficial issue dividing the two sides in the war between the states, but the reason for secession was the confederate view that the abolitionist states were not being held accountable for acting in direct violation of the federal government's binding agreement known as the US Constitution.

Logical fallacies can be very persuasive, but they lack reason.

You are using a red-herring, while making an appeal to emotion with a hasty generalization.

No offense, but I am quite tired of repeating myself.

If you actually address the issues that I have brought forth, specifically the personal liberty laws enacted by the non slave owning states that were in direct violation to Article 4 of the US Constitution that was the cause of confederate secession, then I will continue this debate; however...
If you solely focus on the over-simplified and myopic view that "slavery was the reason for the civil war", then I have nothing left to add.

Cheers.
edit on 12/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Once again, you have addressed this issue with a hasty generalization.


It's not a generalization at all. You take the institution of slavery out of the equation, you take Lincoln losing the elections, and you don't have the South seceeding. The majority of historians agree on this, confederate apologists such as yourself spend all day insisting this isn't the case, opinion does not equate to fact.


The topic at hand concerns why the slave owning states felt the right to secede...
And it was absolutely NOT because they feared any actions from Lincoln.


The topic is about a quote from one of the confederates in 1864. Naturally discussion surrounds the civil war and the reasons for why they seceeded. I've kept on topic so far and if you don't want to debate with me any longer about this notion that those states would have seceeded regardless of whether Lincoln won the elections, don't debate with me.

Southern representitives made it clear through out the elections that Lincoln was an enemy to slave holders, many stated that secession would occur if he won the elections. This is a fact of history, this is accepted fact among historians, closing your ears about it and pushing it aside doesn't change it as part of history:


A Republican victory in the presidential elections would put an end to the South's control of it's own destiny. Even Southern moderates warned that the South could not remain in the Union if Lincoln won.



During the presidential election of 1860, Southern leaders told the South to secede from the Union if Lincoln were to win the election because they believed Lincoln was an abolitionist.

library.thinkquest.org...


In the days following the election of President Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina Gov. William Henry Gist was characteristically blunt: “The only alternative left, in my judgment, is the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”

www.southcarolinaparks.com...


"[Lincoln's election was] an avowed declaration of war upon the institutions, the rights and the interests of the South."
~ John Archer Elmore, Alabama's commissioner to South Carolina, December 17, 1860

www.freewebs.com...


"This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery; or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us. . . . secession is inevitable . . . the part of Mississippi is chosen, she will never submit to the principles and policy of this Black Republican Administration. She had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political, and social equality with the negro race."
~ William L. Harris, Mississippi's commissioner to Georgia, December 17, 1860

www.freewebs.com...


Immediately after the election of President Lincoln, Gov. John J. Pettus issued a call for a special session of the legislature of the state to meet in Jackson, Nov. 26, 1860. In accordance with the advice of the representatives of the state in both branches of Congress, who met in Jackson four days before the legislature assembled, the governor inserted in his message to that body a recommendation that it call a convention for the purpose of withdrawing from the Union

www.electricscotland.com...


This was the message that governor John Pettus of Mississippi delivered to his state legislature on November 26, less tha 3 weeks following Lincoln's election win: "Black republican politics and free negro morals - forces that would transform Mississippi"... "immediate steps needed to be taken"

Apostles of Disunion, pp. 22

Read the speeches, comments of Southern representitives, governors, before and just after Lincolns elections, there is a wealth of references out there concerning secession over Lincoln's election win. Warnings of secession if the election went to Lincoln were very clear, this is not disputed among historians. The internet is an amazing tool, there is a wealth of information out there just waiting to be read, it is up to you to take the initiative to read them.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
It was INACTION from Lincoln.


There's a problem with this argument incase you hadn't noticed. Lincoln only assumed office on March 4th, 1861. Secession started as far back as December 24th, 1860. So what inaction of Lincoln do you speak of? What exactly did he do in office to offend the south, before assuming office at all?


As I have said about 4 times now, the slave owning states felt justified with secession because they saw reprehensible inaction by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government was turning a blind eye to the non slave owning states enacting laws that were in direct violation of Article 4 of the mutually agreed upon, binding, and de jure US Constitution.


There's a problem with this claim right here as well, there are a number of problems. Firstly, the Federal government gave the south what they wanted in 1850, the Fugitive slave act of 1850 forced northern states to disregard their own abolitionist laws and states rights all for the sake of respecting the slavery laws of southern states. The matter of fugitive slaves were delt with by 1850, the south got their way. You also had the Dred Scott decision of 1857 which was yet again another victory for the South. Tariffs were also lowered to their lowest in decades thanks to a strong Southern influence in the 1850's:


The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States. It created a mid-century low point for tariffs. It amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering tax rates around 17 percent.

Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter of Virginia authored the Tariff of 1857. The bill was a response to a federal budget surplus during the mid 1850s. Hunter planned to distribute this surplus in the form of a tax cut. Supporters of the bill came mostly from Southern and agricultural states. These states tended to depend on exports and thus were inclined to support free trade.

www.monacorarecoins.com...


Secondly, you had two Southern backed democratic presidents elected in the 1850's, as well as Southern backed Democratic majority in congress during the 1850's and well before. The Democrats held more than 50% of control over congress the years leading up to the civil war, southerners had strong control and influence over politics in DC. Infact the only reason why Lincoln won in 1860 was because of the division among the Democratic party in the South. So this idea that the rights of the South were being infringed upon, that they held little power and rights at that time is absolutely nonsense, it is not in tune with history.

It was only when it dawned upon southern representitives that Lincoln, a republican, was gaining a lead in between their own personal squabbles within the Democratic party did the South warn of secession. Not only were they most concerned with their most valuable assets, human slaves, but they were also apparently sore losers, according to history, and they ended up losing much more as the result of their unwillingness to accept the election result.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

The majority of historians agree on this
historical accounts and links to support this nonsense please.

i'm pretty sure that it doesn't surprise many that you choose to use pundit material for your assertions. when or if you utilize source documents, some might follow your lead, otherwise, don't count on it.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
Ill stick with the dallas cowboys even though i cant stand jerry jones. So tell me what books/articles/material should i read if i want to find out the TRUTH about the civil war. No propaganda please.


read diaries and accounts written by the soldiers

Company Aytch by Sam Watkins is an EXCELLENT book



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
superb thread, and may the spirit of the South indeed rise again over the oppressive and stifling federal forces,......Obama is a fitting figure head
.

Obama is just following in the footsteps of his favourite tyrannical dictator, Lincoln.

The similarities are striking; he even swore on Lincolns Bible.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Thank you for your response. I always enjoy a lively debate and this has taken a positive turn.
You are very skilled in this realm, but you are relying on classic smoke and mirror arguments that are laden with logical fallacies.
I need to say this because I will be pointing out the flaws and gaps in your line of reasoning.
You are attempting to straw man my arguments by cherry picking limited fragments from my premise.
Good move!! Seriously, but I too am learned in the philosophy of logic and can match your mental kung fu.


There's a problem with this argument incase you hadn't noticed. Lincoln only assumed office on March 4th, 1861. Secession started as far back as December 24th, 1860. So what inaction of Lincoln do you speak of? What exactly did he do in office to offend the south, before assuming office at all?


Yes.... PRECISELY.... Thank you for affirming my premise that the election of Lincoln was not the reason for the slave owning states wishing to secede.

You have quoted a mere fragment of my premise forming a misrepresentation of an argument that I was not putting forth. This is a straw man logical fallacy, albeit a good one, but still a logical fallacy.
I did not say that the South was afraid of inaction by Lincoln. What I said in full was IF THEY FEARED ANYTHING, the South was afraid of inaction by Lincoln.

Let's look at this portion of the previous quote-


Lincoln only assumed office on March 4th, 1861. Secession started as far back as December 24th, 1860.


Thank you again. I have been saying all along that the election of Lincoln was not the match that lit the fire of secession, and it was not solely the superficial issue of slavery.
The reason that the slave owning states sought secession was because the non slave owning states were not being held accountable for violating the binding constitutional agreement that was the glue of the nation.
It was this defiant behavior that created a secession mentality in the slave owning states, PRIOR to the election of Lincoln.

If the slave owning states were afraid of anything it was the INACTION of Lincoln as president, because despite their best efforts the non slave owning states were defying the binding, mutually agreed upon, and de jure constitutional agreement holding together the Union.
Constitutional acts and US Supreme Court decisions mean nothing if a state acts in defiance of them.

The President of the US, whether it be Lincoln, his successor Johnson, or the hoped for Douglas....
He had a choice.

Force through enacting maritime powers, aka martial law, would be required to hold the Union together in response to abolitionist constitutional defiance.

Because Lincoln was a supporter of abolitionist causes his election was a signal that the inaction of the previous President would continue, allowing the non slave owning states to defy the Constitution.
Only by force would abolitionists comply with the Constitution and it was plainly obvious that the non slave owning states would not be held accountable, so naturally, the slave owning states looked toward secession.

And this idea of secession was discussed prior to Lincoln.

What the Confederate States did not expect was Lincoln's enacting of maritime powers in response to secession.
For some odd and unexplained reason, the defiant behaviors of the non slave owning states were dismissed, but yet the Constitutionally accepted idea of secession was seen as seditious and treasonous.

The quote in the OP discusses the fact that the military action by the Federal Government was designed to destroy and subjugate the nouveau riche culture embraced by the confederate aristocracy through sectional superiority, and it is hard to argue that point.

The Southern states were compliant to the binding constitutional agreement to the very end and only seceded when they felt that the agreement was no longer valid, therefore no longer binding.
The final cruel twist was that the very same states that formed the Union post secession then declared war upon the slave owning states.
And the reason for this was the fact that the slave owning states seceded from a non-binding Union, non-binding due to the distinctly UNCONSTITUTIONAL behavior of the abolitionist states.

That, my friend, is the historical truth.

Cheers.
edit on 12/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Lincoln was elected in November, 1860. Which would put the beginning of secession, referred to by SouthernGuardian beginning in the very next month, and not previous to Lincoln's election.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
You are very skilled in this realm,


You mean to say I do have the skills? I was told prior that I did not.



Thank you for affirming my premise that the election of Lincoln was not the reason for the slave owning states wishing to secede.


That did not affirm your premise at all. I already gave you a number of sources pointing to a number of southern representitives, governors, warning of secession, if Lincoln were to win the elections. Secession hinged largely on the fact that the Republican party won the elections and the fears of what "rights" especially in the case of the institution of slavery, would be stripped under a Republican administration. The South had no intention of giving Lincoln a chance under his administration, there are numerous references from that era proving this.


I have been saying all along that the election of Lincoln was not the match that lit the fire of secession,


Well it was, I see you decided to just push my references aside pointing to the many quotes made by southern representitives that time warning of secession if Lincoln won. Ignoring the mount of evidence and quotes out there warning of secession over the election result does not change history itself.


Before secession, residents of Northern states had no interest in a war (Why rock the boat?), but secession in response to Lincoln’s election changed everything: Allowing any state simply to leave when its voters did not like the results of an election undercut any basis for self-government (elections only work, after all, if we all agree to abide by them even when we don’t like the results), and therefore could not be countenanced. And so, as Lincoln would put it, the war came.

Which is not to say it was inevitable no matter who won. Nor is it to say that no conflict would have erupted if anyone else had won. But it is to say that war coming exactly when, where and how it did was the product of long-term causes and immediate triggers, and the election of Lincoln was, without question, an immediate trigger

voices.washingtonpost.com...


The reason that the slave owning states sought secession was because the non slave owning states were not being held accountable for violating the binding constitutional agreement


Again, northern states were forced to give up their abolitionist laws and respect those over the slavery laws in the south by 1850 through the Fugitive slaves act. The South got their way through that act, and while many northern residents refused to cooperate over the years with this law, there were no warnings of secession as the result of that. The South did not wait 10 years after the Fugitive slave act in 1850 to complain about it's ineffectiveness and to suddenly seceed, don't be silly.


Because Lincoln was a supporter of abolitionist causes his election was a signal that the inaction of the previous President would continue,


Exactly, and despite Lincoln's reassurances that he would preserve the institution under his administration, neither of them believed him.


And this idea of secession was discussed prior to Lincoln.


Yes it was, the idea of secession was also discussed numerous times in response to the scenario where Lincoln wins the elections.


The Southern states were compliant to the binding constitutional agreement


No they weren't. The South was only concerned with their own states rights, they held absolute disregard was rights of Northern states. I'll leave you to believe the South were "compliant" with the constitution all the way, this just was not the case in the 19th century.

Speaking of the 1860 elections, it looks like southern delegates tried everything in their power to avoid an election win by Lincoln:


South Carolina still did not hold popular votes for presidential electors. The state's electors backed Breckenridge.


Lincoln got Zero votes in all southern states but Virginia and Kentucky:
www.etymonline.com...

Out of over a million eligible voters, Lincoln got zero votes. For example, in Georgia, Douglas received 11,581 votes, Breckenridge scorded over 52,000 votes, Bell scored just under 43,000, Lincoln scored zero. Check out the results sometime, he scored zero votes in all those southern states. You have to wonder whether he was just that much hated in those states, or whether his votes were just fogotten? Or ignored? You still say Lincoln's elections was not the final push to south secession?

The South did not seceed because they "believed in the constitution" or that they "believed in states rights". They did not seceed for the sake of "Liberty". The South did not seceed either because of the tyrannical actions of the Federal government, they dominated the Federal government.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Lincoln was not on the ballot in many of the southern states.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Lincoln was not on the ballot in many of the southern states.


And why do you think that was?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



That did not affirm your premise at all. I already gave you a number of sources pointing to a number of southern representitives, governors, warning of secession, if Lincoln were to win the elections. Secession hinged largely on the fact that the Republican party won the elections and the fears of what "rights" especially in the case of the institution of slavery, would be stripped under a Republican administration. The South had no intention of giving Lincoln a chance under his administration, there are numerous references from that era proving this.


The opinions of the Southern representatives and Governors, and the warnings of secession that you have quoted do not represent the actual reason for Confederate secession.

Individuals are biased, on both sides, and the warnings that you have quoted are emotionally driven.
The reason for secession was logical, and the manipulation of emotion is the hallmark of propaganda. It was used back then just as it is used today.

The only means available that would allow for a true understanding of Confederate secession are the actual declarations of secession themselves.
These declarations express exactly what is conveyed by the quote in the OP.

Let's look at South Carolina's declaration of secession.

It begins by describing the voluntary formation of a confederation (as in Articles of Confederation) whose primary purpose was the defense of the free and independent states from the British Empire.


In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."


The declaration of secession then goes on to further quote the Declaration of Independence. This is an important quote because it forms the basis for the right of secession.


They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."


Did you catch that?
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.

Let's move on.

The declaration then goes on to discuss the means by which our constitutional republic evolved and the responsibilities of the states to one another. The important aspect to this part of the declaration is that it describes the limits placed upon a central government and the 'law of compact".
The law of compact is the essence of all contracts and states that in agreements between two or more parties, if one side does not hold true to the requirements of the compact then the obligations are no longer binding.


Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.


I am out of characters. Please allow me to continue in another comment.
Because it's just getting good.

For those who are impatient... Here is a link to the declaration of secession.

link to declaration of secession for South Carolina



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Okay... where were we...

Oh snap. The heart of the matter.

Here is where they break it down.


In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.


The statutes to which they are referring are the personal liberty laws which were in direct violation to Article 4 section 2 clause 3 of the US Constitution.
This is the Fugitive Slave Clause to which you have referred.

This clause was brazenly and defiantly disregarded by 14 states that then declared war upon the Confederate States.

Lincoln and slavery are not points of contention in an act of secession.

The points of contention reflect actual constitutional law.
Constitutional law that the abolitionist states were required by constitutional compact to honor.

By not honoring the Constitution, the contract was no longer binding and the Confederate States asserted their right to dissolve the corrupt government in order to form their version of a more perfect union.

Just as the original thirteen colonies did when writing the declaration of independence.

It is all here in black and white.
NOT OPINIONS BUT SOURCE DOCUMENTS.

link to actual SOURCE DOCUMENTS

Read 'em and weep.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
This is my final post to this thread.

If anyone is actually still reading then the truth contained in the quote in the OP should be obvious.

We have been inundated with propaganda concerning the war between the states from the moment that we all took our first breath.

When students learn about the Dred Scott decision or they discuss the fugitive slave laws, the fact that these were constitutionally binding agreements that were repeatedly violated by abolitionists in order to weaken the political clout of the Southern aristocratic class is never discussed or portrayed correctly.

Abolitionists are seen as the saviors of humanity and the Confederates are seen as racist...
And it is all a lie.

The abolitionists had one goal- to destroy the constitutionally guaranteed institution of slavery in order to destroy the wealth of the Southern aristocrats.
And it must never be forgotten that the very thing that the Constitution was written to avoid took its first breath because of this conflict, an oppressive central government.
This is the primary reason that the truth behind the struggle for Southern independence has been shrouded in the emotional red herring of slavery.

The abolitionists were not humanitarians. They were just as cruel, if not more, toward the freed slaves.
Because they had no investment in their well being.

The only possible way to understand this complex issue is to step outside of emotion and view this from a truly historical perspective.
This is very difficult to do, and this difficulty is directly due to the influence that the abolitionists have had on history.
We learn biased emotion.
We do not learn cold fact.

If you have actually read this thread then look at the quote in the OP while you let my words digest.

Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.

-Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The opinions of the Southern representatives and Governors, and the warnings of secession that you have quoted do not represent the actual reason for Confederate secession.


They do represent the motives for secession. They represent true motives by the governors and southern delegates right before the elections. Any impartial observer will see this for what it is, the south intentionally seceeding on the basis of the election result because they've already made assumptions that their institution of slavery would be abolished under Lincoln's administration.

Prior to Lincoln's election win, for the vast majority of the 1850's, the Democrats who held a strong southern backing dominated the Federal government. Both of the previous presidents before Lincoln were southern backed Democrats. When the tables turned and Lincoln was elected, not only did they act like poor sportsmen over the loss of their candidates, but they also made the assumption that slavery would be abolished under Lincoln and decided to seceed.

Do you really believe that Confederates would admit in an official writing that the trigger to secession larger hinged on their losses in a democratic election? I don't think so, historical evidence points to this fact however.


Let's look at South Carolina's declaration of secession.


Why just South Carlina's declaration?

Mississippi (January, 1861):

These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

Texas (2nd February, 1861):

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits.

www.tsl.state.tx.us...

Georgia (January 29th, 1860):

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

sunsite.utk.edu...

The basis for secession was to preserve that of african slavery, to preserve the institution of slavery in the South. The south viewed Lincoln's win as a referendum on the institution of slavery in America, even though Lincoln himself reassured the south he would not touch it. As the result of the decisions of the south, there was a war, and the South ended up losing dearly for it.


This is an important quote because it forms the basis for the right of secession.


There is no "right" to secession or sovereignty. The United States was formed through violence and force, independence required a rebellion by American patriots, it wasn't as if the United States simply seceeded because there was some unspoken "right" to do so. Most of the States were carved out from Union territory, they were not sovereign states prior, they did not voluntarily join the Union. Native Hawaiians along with their King were forced to sign a new constitution transferring power to American elites in the late 19th century, which lead to Hawaii becoming and American territory, despite Hawaiian opposition. Later Hawaii voted to become a state, because the only other option was to remain a territory with little autonomy. California, Arizona, New Mexico and part of the western states were carved out of the blood of Mexican and American soldiers, The United States took the northern lands of Mexico by force.

Come to think of it, the only real state I'm aware of that was sovereign at one point and voluntarily joined the Union was that of Texas. The rest were carved out of already Union controlled territory. The United States did not form through voluntary means. There is no real "right" to sovereignty, for the most part nations have to earn that sovereignty. It is not really that hard to understand you know? Had the Confederate States won the civil war, they would most very likely be a country still in existence today, and rightfully so, because they fought and successfully earned that independence.

War isn't fair, there's no magical right for states to seceed, history is not fair.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The abolitionists had one goal- to destroy the constitutionally guaranteed institution of slavery


Yep, how dare they try to destroy slavery, it is an american right, it is what this country should stand for. True liberty is to support the enslavement of others right? I mean I suppose you support individual liberty because slavery is a natural constitutional right in this country?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
If slavery can be put aside as an inefficient and expensive way for taxable consumers to live, the best reason for the North to gain control the South is National Security. England or any other European power could have used the South against the North or visa versa.

Each state should have been a separte county from the start. Most signators of the Constitution thought that they were getting into something like the United Nations, not an all powerful central government. The Anti-Federalists predicted and warned against all of the centralization of power and alienation of representation that has happened since 1789.

The Civil War kept the North American continent under the minimum number of controllers, and put everyone into debt.

History is written by the winners, art and culture are commisioned by the winners also.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 
not quite ... the discussions were going on long before the election.
while the first Declaration of Secession was filed following the election and the first offical conventions occurred in December, 1960, it was not an impetuous or impulsive decision.

perhaps reading the "arguments" leading to the decision of that state might help you frame the environment.

gathkinsons.net...
(opening statement) - Gentlemen: We have met here under circumstances more solemn than any of us have ever been placed in before. No one, it seems to me, is duly impressed with the magnitude of the work before him, who does not, at the same time, feel that he is about to enter upon the gravest and most solemn act which has fallen to the lot of this generation to accomplish. It is no less than our fixed determination to throw off a Government to which we have been accustomed, and to provide new safeguards for our future security. If anything has been decided by the elections which sent us here, it is, that South Carolina must dissolve her connection with the Confederacy as speedily as possible.

In the progress of this movement we have two great dangers to fear overtures from without, and precipitation within. I trust that the door is now forever closed to all further connection with our Northern confederates; for what guarantees can they offer us, more strictly guarded, or under higher, sanctions, than the present written compact between us ? And did that sacred instrument protect us from the jealousy and aggressions of the North, commenced forty years ago, which resulted in the Missouri Compromise ?

Did the Constitution protect us from the cupidity of the Northern people, who, for thirty-five years, have imposed the burden of supporting the General Government chiefly on the industry of the South ? Did it save us from Abolition petitions, designed to annoy and insult us, in the very halls of our Federal Congress ? Did it enable us to obtain a single foot of the soil acquired in the war with Mexico, where the South furnished three-fourths of the money, two-thirds of the men, and four-fifths of the graves ? Did it oppose any obstacle to the erection of California into a free-soil State, without any previous territorial existence, without any defined boundaries, or any census of her population ? Did it throw any protection around the Southern settlers of Kansas, when the soil of that territory was invaded by the emissaries of Emigrant Aid Societies, in a crusade preached from Northern pulpits, when churchmen and women contributed Sharp’s rifles and Colt’s revolvers, to swell the butchery of Southern men ? And has not that Constitution been trodden under foot by almost every Northern State, in their Ordinances nullifying all laws made for the recovery of fugitive slaves, by which untold millions of property have been lost to the South ?

Let us be no longer duped by paper securities. Written Constitutions are worthless, unless they are written, at the same time, in the hearts, and founded on the interests of a people; and as there is no common bond of sympathy or interest between the North and the South, all efforts to preserve this Union will not only be fruitless, but fatal to the less numerous section. The other danger to which I referred, may arise from too great impatience on the part of our people to precipitate the issue, in not waiting until they can strike with the authority of law.

At the moment of inaugurating a great movement like the present, I trust that we will go forward, and not be diverted from our purpose by influences from without. In the outset of this movement I can offer you no better motto than Danton’s, at the commencement of the French Revolution : ” To dare ! and again to dare ! And without end to dare ! ”

also from same source ...

What are the grievances listed here?

1) The Missouri Compromise — which limited slavery to below the 36 30 line.
2) The federal government is funded by taxes on the South.
3) Southerners (that is, slave-owners) didn’t get any of the land acquired from Mexico.
4) California was admitted as a free state.
5) Southern (that is, slave-owning) Kansas settlers were attacked by abolitionists.
6) Personal liberty laws in the North impede enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law.

One of the six is arguably unrelated to slavery.
so, while slavery was an issue, it wasn't the primary one, not by a longshot.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Can you read?

Nearly the entire grievance listed by this guy is all about issues related to slavery, which he gives a rather one-sided account of. Even the quote you provide includes a handy summary: five out of six issues are directly related to slavery.

So what were you trying to say?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
IF anyone reading this hasn't read "How We Got Lincoln" / American Heritage, i would highly suggest it.
www.americanheritage.com...

not only a good read but it spells out why Lincoln wasn't on many southern ballots (in some States, the Legislature chose the candidate / SC for example).

it tells of one of the most important political Conventions ever and how Lincoln was nominated.

and, it provides valuable insight into the inner workings of the political battles we are enduring today. we asked for it and we got it.
from link above ...

Four days earlier the Democratic party convention in Charleston had done an extraordinary thing. Deliberately, the delegates had thrown away the forthcoming presidential election. They had met to confirm Sen. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, the only Democrat who could have reached out beyond the slaveholding South and gathered up enough electoral votes from the border states to win. But insurrection had been in the air at Charleston. The smooth-talking Democrat from Alabama, William Yancey, who took pride in being known as “the Prince of the FireEaters,” had his mind not on success within the political system but on secession from the Union. With Yancey calling the shots, the convention turned away from Douglas and refused to nominate anybody. The party would eventually put up two candidates, Douglas and Vice-President John Breckinridge, while a hastily formed splinter group calling itself the Constitutional Union party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.

Yancey had what he wanted. The fragmented Democrats would most likely lose to a Republican committed to abolition. The South would have no choice but to secede.

So the way was left open for the Republicans. A political organization that had been stitched together five years earlier by grafting snippets of Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Abolitionists, and runaway Democrats onto the carcass of the old, moribund Whig party had the Presidency within its grasp for the first time. In 1856, with no reasonable chance of victory, the Republicans had nominated the romantic adventurer John Frémont, and lost. Now it was time for a seasoned man of politics. That man was Seward.
you'll have to read the rest







 
100
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join